Yeah working on an expansion when the base game isn't working properly seems like a sound strategy.
“Several” Europa Universalis IV expansions planned, one by the end of 2013
- Thread starter Regina
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So... any hints as to the theme of the upcoming xpac? Are we going to get an expanded Napoleonic era or perhaps skip straight to Divine Wind?
luckly for you the basegame is working. So it is a good strategy.
It's working in the sense that it's starting up and running without any real problems. It's not working properly (which is what I said, I can't believe you would not manage to read the word directly following another one but I guess fanboyism induces temporary blindness in some subjects) in the sense that the combat mechanics are fundamentally flawed rendering both the actual combat extremely bad while also making many tooltips ingame that are supposed to describe how combat works incorrect.
Please, PLEASE remove that awful "annex pagan countries without OE" thing. I can see which group pushed for it (the "SPANISH CAN'T HISTORICALLY ANNEX" group, probably), but they are wrong - it took 40 years to annex the Aztecs, 70 for the Inca and 190 for the Mayans - and, of course, many centuries to dislodge the North American tribes. There is no reason at all to have a special case for an event that never happened.
.png){kind=avatar}
It's pretty silly from a gameplay perspective as well. There's just no reason not to go for Exploration first, unless you're dead landlocked or are Portugal, then catch-and-release them for the vassal income.
What the hell are you talking about? There is nothing about your suggestion that even comes close to modeling The Hansa's role in all of this. Their secret deal with the Ottomans made them rich, and hard-coding an event for this would be a lazy way out when what you need is a trade system overhaul to represent their virtual supremacy over deciding who lived and who died. And let's not forget how the deer heresies that showed up in the low countries are not even mentioned right now, because the current religious system can't represent the way they undermined moosism at large. I'm staunchly on the pro-moose expansion side, and you would be too if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Pardon me if I'm missing something, but if modifiers from national ideas don't affect combat it's just a bug. Serious one, but still. However, it's good to hear it will be fixed in the upcoming patch.
Hope too see more starting game options, better dinasties and better naval aspect of the game. Privateers, making naval supplies more important, naval Manpower etc etc.
Maybe expansion will be called something like "Wooden ships, Iron men"
As for the current game, just spare yourself the frustration and play something else until 1.3 is released.
Maybe expansion will be called something like "Wooden ships, Iron men"
As for the current game, just spare yourself the frustration and play something else until 1.3 is released.
This game needs more randomness and more events. By that I mean that, more often than not, "historical" superpowers tend to get the best colonies, more tech,... I wish that you could have random big plagues, social revolutions, large countries being ripped apart, genius leaders leading a second-rate country to glory, etc...
More sliders, decisions too. What makes this game great is the depth of it. What if I wanted to force women to stay home and have many babies? Or if I let them join the army? What if I created my own religion to suit my political needs? What if I outlawed religion? What if I decided to ban a certain culture?
More sliders, decisions too. What makes this game great is the depth of it. What if I wanted to force women to stay home and have many babies? Or if I let them join the army? What if I created my own religion to suit my political needs? What if I outlawed religion? What if I decided to ban a certain culture?
Get rid of overextension! It's completely redundant. It's like a warscore system within the warscore system. One is good enough!
How is it redundant? It doesn't just limit the number of provinces you can take in ONE peace deal, it limits the number of provinces you can take OVERALL
You're correct, but there is still a fair bit of redundancy and clunky-ness between those two mechanics. Essentially it seems like Paradox decided to try to make warscore do overextension's job by having warscore become an additional mostly-arbitrary limitation to the number of provinces you can take, even at "100%" warscore. It's not very good design plain and simple, though I don't really foresee Paradox improving this issue.
Except warscore has always been there in every Paradox game, and OE is the new mechanic so, if anything, they were making OE a 2nd limit on peace deals (which I agree is often annoying, especially when fighting a coalition)
I'd like some choices within national ideas, like trees. For example, if you took trade, you could either start working towards free trade or mercantilist practices. If you took religion, you could work towards being tolerant of other religions or you could improve your ability to assert your own religion
Actually is more that mercantilism is too rigid and depends too much on random events. It should be about choice, more often. Specially if you used Trade NI.
Now I want a "Temporal Rift" DLC.
From that site:
http://www.incgamers.com/2013/08/bizarre-unused-art-files-found-in-europa-universalis-iv-dlc
From that site:
http://www.incgamers.com/2013/08/bizarre-unused-art-files-found-in-europa-universalis-iv-dlc
I highly suspect the raiding mechanics in TOG for CK2 will either make a comeback, or at least inspire privateering mechanics in a DLC for EU4. In fact, the raid mechanic in CK2 is perfect to simulate privateers and corsairs in EU4.
Also I have a small wishlist of a few things I wish in further expansions:
1) Possibility in late game to ask per-month reparations paid in peace treaties, rather than lump sums.
2) Return with rework of Trade Agreements, including a possibility to include them in peace treaties.
3) Ceding Trade Power lasting only the time of a truce makes no sense. It should last until the giving power decides it ceases helping you.
4) Vassals and PUs' trade power should go in part to the domineering power so that it helps its trade, rather than steal from it.
5) Exchanging peace deals, allowing compensations for territorial losses. Also, in late game it should be easier to reclaim or exchange large parcels of land (like Naples or Venezia-Lombardy, which was exchanged back and forth in treaties).
6) Trading posts, colonial protectorates, and low-grade, limited colonial wars. I shouldn't have to invade Lisboa to gain a parcel of Brazil from Portugal.
Last edited: